Respuesta a: Re: [Marxism] Brizola
Remitido por: Johannes Schneider
Fecha: Miércoles 23 de Junio de 2004
Hora: 11:55
*****
> Am Wed, 23 Jun 2004 01:11:48 -0300 hat Nestor Gorojovsky
> <nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar> geschrieben:
>> > Leonel Brizola died yesterday.
> >
>> Guardian orbituary:
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,3604,1245043,00.html>> From the NYT orbituary:
>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/23/international/americas/23brizolaobit.html>> "His political views remained almost unchanged since the 1960's. Until his
> death, he advocated a militant form of economic nationalism, liberal
> benefits for government employees and a generous education policy.
>> Mr. Brizola's radical politics eventually put him at odds with Mr. da
> Silva, the former union leader who was elected president in October 2002
> in his fourth bid for the presidency. Mr. Brizola backed Mr. da Silva in
> his first year in office, but broke with the government in December,
> alleging that the president had abandoned his leftist roots."
>> But what are your thoughts, Nestor?
My first thought is that I should ask our Brazilian cdes. on this
list, among which there are many able and insightful observers of the
Brazilian political scenario, to give their own opinion.
I would rather express my feelings. Before that, I will sketch some
short lines, which may be plagued with mistakes, for which I will ask
your good will, and the help of our Brazilian cdes. on the list.
Brizola was the last representative of the generation of Latin
American revolutionaries who, during the age of interimperialist
strife that began in 1930, attempted a path of their own for national
liberation, a non-socialist path of course but nevertheless concrete
and progressive, which not only generated prosperity and self-
reliance for their countries, but also worked to give a sense of
dignity to the masses.
It is very well known that after his governments seized without
compensation American enterprises in his home state of Rio Grande do
Sul (ITT, among others), the State Department kept him always in the
cross-hairs. The 1964 coup is said not to have been given against
President J. Goulart as much as against the future President,
Brizola.
Forced to exile, he went to Montevideo first, later to Portugal when
the Uruguayan dictatorship forced him out in 1977. He could not
repeat Perón's saga of leadership from outside the country, however.
When he returned to Brazil, some ten or fifteen years ago, his
prestige was unharmed, but he could not build a political
representation for his ideas. The gigantic, newly born, assertive
and privileged proletariat of Sao Paulo and the South were too big
for his abilities and strengths.
Thus, instead of taking Brizola as their representative, they put a
unionist, from their own ranks, at the helm of the state.
But, could Brizola go ahead with his ideas of the 60s? This is an
open question. IMHO, all the experiences of the age that opened up
around 1930 were confronting serious difficulties _of their own make_
in the mid-60s already, and Brizola's Travalhismo wasn't an
exception.
The American-sponsored military feared him so much that they menaced
with bombing Porto Alegre if he did not resign in 1964. He did not
wage the battle, maybe due to sound tactical considerations. But the
path that Brazil took from that coup onwards, in a sense, turned
Brizola in a great relic of a glorious past.
Anyway, I feel a great grief. A lifelong fighter for the rights of
the dispossessed, a honest and serious anti-imperialist, has passed
away. He was no Marxist. But he was one of us. These are my
feelings.
Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
"Sí, una sola debe ser la patria de los sudamericanos".
Simón Bolívar al gobierno secesionista y disgregador de
Buenos Aires, 1822
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _